Delta Deck: cards for playing G40 Delta house rules

@midnight_reaper that’s a cool idea and I might have to try it. However I don’t like the idea of getting advancements for free, which is why I like some sort of facility to buy. Since the G40 R&D board seems to have the better advances on one side I’d say you have to roll a 1-4 to get the 1 column, and 5-6 to get the second. Maybe even through in an added cost to get 1-3 & 4-6. But again with that, I think countries should have to build the facilities in their capitol instead of anywhere and starting with them.

The rules concerning Tank Destroyer units and Waffen-SS Assault Pioneer units have been updated.

Please read the updated rules.

@monsieurmurdoch I am not sure how these house rules would interplay with 40 since the scope of warfare was so different. Hospitals and ambulance customization could. I hope you can find a 1914 game. Keep an eye out. And, I do have some plans for barb wire, trenches, etc. Thanks for the feedback!

Just some thoughts on how I might implement a TSRR rule in our Global game. I feel this may help out in the bidding process. If Russia can get it’s troops back to Moscow, the Allies may not need such a high bid.

A -The Trans-Siberian Railroad was made to bring mass troops from all over Russia. Therefore, ALL troops gathered along the Trans-Siberian Railroad countries may move freely from one end to the end on Russia’s NON-COMBAT move. This move may only go ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! There was only one rail and it took 8 days from end to the other. This railway may ONLY be used by Russian troops. The route exists along Russia to Samara, Samara to Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk to Tunguska, Tunguska to Yenisey, Yenisey to Yakut SSR, SSR to Buryatia, Buryatia to Amur.

B - Exceptions: If Axis controls any country of The Trans-Siberian Railroad, it is then sabotaged and no longer functions until Allies liberates. It then can be used on its FOLLOWING non-combat move.

C - The Trans Siberian Railroad may bombed by Tac/Strat Bombers the same as Naval and Air Bases. (See Rule Book)

Sorry for the late feedback. I was pretty occupied during the last weeks.  :-(

We did playtest the “Island Hoping” VO and in our opinion it worked very well. The Axis decided to do a G1 Barbarossa and a J1 Pearl Harbor. The idea was to force USA into a Pacific war and that way provide Germany the needed air to crush Russia. This idea worked and the US player did heavily invest in the Pacific to prevent Japan from getting the islands and later even more to get the islands himself. Because of this fact we would say that those new VOs are very good, because before there was not much to lose in the Pacific for the Americans, but a lot to win in Europe.

Resume, we will keep playing with the new VO in our next games and keep you informed!  :wink:

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

updated 11/10/07 check first page